Informational:

FATIGUE
and
FRACTURE
CRITICAL
MEMBERS
An Overview

nsba
National Steel Bridge Alliance
A Division of the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
Main Menu

Home Menu

The National Steel Bridge Alliance has published

this document in its continuing effort to enhance
the state-of-the-art of steel bridge design and
construction in the United States.

Disclaimer
All data, specifications, suggested practices and drawings presented herein, are based on the best available information and delineated in accordance with recognized professional engineering principles and practices, and are published for general information only. Procedures and products, suggested or discussed, should not be used without first securing competent advice respecting their suitability for any given application.
Publication of the material herein is not to be construed as a warranty on the part of the National Steel Bridge Alliance - or
that of any person named herein - that these data and suggested practices are suitable for any general or particular use, or of
freedom from infringement on any patent or patents. Further, any use of these data or suggested practices can only be made
with the understanding that the National Steel Bridge Alliance makes no warranty of any kind respecting such use and the user
assumes all liability arising therefrom.

Informational:
FATIGUE
and
FRACTURE
CRITICAL
MEMBERS
An Overview

FATIGUE

is when cracking occurs due to cyclic loading. Cyclic

loading, primarily in tension, can lead to fatigue cracking even if the yield stress of the
material, weld metal or fastener is never exceeded. The structural failure occurs when
the fatigue crack grows to a sufficient size to cause an unstable fracture. Such fatigueinduced fracture can develop from a minute crack or flaw existing at some mechanical
or metallurgical discontinuity or a location of stress concentration. With successive
load repetitions, the crack or flaw may grow and propagate through the material until
the affected member fractures.
The fatigue strength of a connection or detail on a member is governed
by three variables:
(1) Number of cycles of loading causing tension
(2) Range of service load stress
(i.e. difference between maximum and minimum stress)
(3) Initial size of a flaw or discontinuity.
A great deal of research has been carried out regarding fatigue over the past forty
years. That research led to bridge specifications categorizing the various joint details
which allows engineers to address potential fatigue in the design process. These and
other fatigue related AASHTO specifications, when carefully followed, assure a bridge
designer that potential adverse impact of fatigue on the safety of the bridge is either
eliminated or greatly reduced.

Charles D.
Gorman, P.E.
Senior Structural Consultant
Construction Marketing
Bethlehem Lukens Plate

Informational:

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS (FCM)

are defined as tension members or

tension components of bending members (including those subject to reversal of stress), the failure of which would be expected to result in
collapse of the bridge. In general terms, a member or component may qualify as fracture critical if all three of the following conditions exist:
(1) Member or component is in tension or subjected to tension
(2) Loads or forces have no alternate path to travel but through the member
(3) Failure of the member or component would result in collapse of the bridge.

Historical Background

n December 15,
1967, the Silver
Bridge over the
Ohio River at Point Pleasant,
West Virginia collapsed without warning and forty-six
people lost their lives. The
bridge was an eyebar chain
suspension bridge with a 700foot center span and 380-foot
end spans. The investigation
following the failure established that stresses had not
exceeded the stress levels for
which the bridge was
designed. The main cause of
collapse was determined to
be the brittle fracture of two
corrosion cracks at a pinhole
in one of the eyebars. The
arrangement of the eyebars

was such that fracture of any

one eyebar would cause complete collapse of the structure. This failure led to a
Federal law mandating biennial inspections of the nations
bridges.
Over the next ten years,
FHWA inspections revealed
that a number of bridges had
experienced major cracks, fortunately without loss of the
structures. As an example, in
1969 the Bryte Bend Bridge
near Sacramento experienced
large cracks. In May of 1975
the two-girder Lafayette
Street Bridge in MinneapolisSt. Paul experienced cracks
that initiated at a lateral con-

nection plate and propagated

the full depth of the web.
Another example was the
Quinnipiac River Bridge on I91 near New Haven,
Connecticut. In 1973 a crack
was discovered that had originated in an unfused butt weld
in the interface between a
longitudinal stiffener and the
web. The crack propagated
through a large portion of the
web and into the bottom
flange.
Another fracture
occurred in the I-79 Bridge
near Pittsburgh at Neville
Island in 1977. This crack initiated at a groove weld detail
that resulted in the fracture of
both the web and the flange.
These and a number of

other bridge anomalies that

occurred during the sixties
and seventies led the Federal
Highway
Administration,
AASHTO, American Welding
Society, the steel industry and
researchers to review the
design, material and fabrication provisions being used at
the time. Based on this
review, changes or additions
to the specifications have
been made over the years. As
a result, there are now extensive provisions to address
fatigue, material toughness
requirements, a bridge welding code and the requirement
of a Fracture Control Plan.

Fatigue Categories
T

he AASHTO bridge
specification assigns
a fatigue category to
various types of fabrication
details as well as plain material. The categories are generally related to the stress concentrations associated with
the detail and the initial flaw
sizes related to the fabrication
process.
The fatigue categories are
identified with letters A
through F. Category A represents plain material and has
the best fatigue resistance. As
the categories go from A to
F, their resistance to fatigue
diminishes. For example, the
end of a welded cover plate is
a Category E detail. The
Standard Specification provides two tables, one for
redundant structures and one
for non-redundant structures.
The LRFD Specification has
just one table of allowable
stress ranges irrespective of
redundancy. Each table lists
the allowable stress range for
various numbers of cycles of
applied load for each of the
fatigue categories. It is the

responsibility of the engineer

to evaluate the design to
ensure that, for the expected
number of cycles of applied
loads, the stress range at various joint details does not
exceed the allowable for that
particular detail. At times,
designers chose to use details
that permit a higher allowable
range than is needed.
Generally, these details add
extra cost to the structure
and provide no increase in
reliability. For example, a
Category B detail provides no
additional value, but requires
unnecessary additional cost,
when a Category C detail for
a crossframe-stiffener connection plate detail is sufficient for
the stress-range.
According
to
the
AASHTO Bridge Design
specification, cross frame connection plates are to be rigidly connected at both the top
and bottom flanges to prevent distortion induced
fatigue. Two common methods are used: (a) the connection stiffener is fillet welded
directly to the flanges, a

Category C detail and (b) the

stiffener is welded to a plate
or tee (commonly called a tab
plate) that is bolted to the
tension flange, a Category B
detail. The Category C detail
is the most economical detail
for plate girder bridges.
Girder designs that satisfy
strength and deflection criteria usually satisfy Category C

Category B detail because of

historic reluctance to weld to
any tension flange.
When Category C stress
range limits are met in the
design process, the use of a
Category B detail adds cost
but no increased reliability to
the design. If a Category B
cross frame connection is

Fatigue cracks do not propagate in bridges that

are designed, detailed and fabricated by todays
standards. For all practical purposes, if the
stress range at a detail is less than the allowable
range, unstable crack growth does not occur.
stress ranges at cross frame
locations. When necessary,
careful
placement
of
diaphragm locations away
from the points of maximum
stress can often eliminate the
need for the tab plate detail.
Researchers and AASHTO
have endorsed the Category
C detail of welding stiffeners
to either the compression or
tension flange. However, a
number of designers use a

used at the stiffener to flange

location, that requires only a
Category C detail, the engineer still needs to evaluate
the Category C condition
that would also exist at the
stiffener to web weld.
Likewise the Category C
condition at the stiffener to
tab plate weld also needs to
be evaluated.

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

Fracture Critical
I

n order for a member to be classified as fracture critical, the member must be in tension or subject to tensile stress. Members or
components that are not subject to tensile stress are not fracture critical. Further, for a bridge member to be fracture critical, it
must also be the only load path available. A fracture critical member must be a primary member, the fracture of which would
cause collapse of the bridge. This is defined by AASHTO as non-redundant.Tension flange and web plates in one or two-girder bridges may
be examples of fracture critical members. However, it is unlikely that a two-girder bridge will collapse despite the failure of one of the flanges.
Redundancy is often provided by lateral distribution of loads through the concrete slab,
the cross bracing/diaphragms and participation of non-structural elements
such as curbs and railing.

he vast majority of bridges do not have

fracture critical members. However, it is
important to recognize when they exist.
AASHTO specifications require the bridge
designer to identify and designate Fracture
Critical Members (FCM) on the contract
drawings. Any member or component that
qualifies and is designated as fracture critical must meet a separate set of requirements and special fabrication procedures.
These special fabrication procedures need
to be included in a Fracture Control Plan
(FCP) which is required as a part of the
ANSI/AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding
Code.

Fracture Critical or Not

A plate girder bridge with three or more girders is a redundant structure and does not contain
members that should be considered fracture critical.
For one or two girder bridges, while considered non-redundant, fracture critical requirements
are limited to the tension components such as the web and tension flanges. For straight simple
span bridges, only the web and the bottom flange would be fracture critical.
For trusses, certain tension members may be FCM.
The tie of a tied arch is generally considered fracture critical.
Any hanger-type members, such as a pin and hanger on a girder bridge or the hanger truss
members on a suspended truss, may be fracture critical.

Fracture Control Plan

The Fracture Control Plan (FCP) is defined in Section
12 of the ANSI/AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code,
which details provisions regarding the fabrication of
bridge members designated as fracture critical.
Implementation of the Fracture Control Plan will help
to ensure that steel bridges with critical tension components serve a useful serviceable life over the period
intended in the original design.

The FCP addresses the following items in detail:

Base metal requirements
Welding process
Consumable requirements
Welding procedure specification
Contractor requirements
Thermal cutting
Repair of base metal
Straightening, curving and cambering
Tack welds and temporary welds
Weld inspection
Repair welding

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

versus

Redundancy
Non-Redundancy
A

s discussed earlier,
FCM are members
or components that
are critical to the overall survival of the bridge and are,
therefore, non-redundant.
Per AASHTO, an example
of a redundant structure
would be a multi-girder bridge
with three or more girders. If
one girder cracks, the loads
carried by that girder can be
transferred to adjacent girders

through the deck and cross

frames. Although damaged,
the bridge can remain in limited service. The defining of a
member as redundant or
non-redundant is somewhat
ambiguous. Present specifications do not definitively define
redundancy. In addition to the
question of an alternate load
path, internal redundancy is
often believed to exist. An
example of internal redun-

dancy would be a built-up

member with bolts, similar to
the riveted members of the
past. The justification or basis
for built-up member redundancy is that if a crack occurs
in one component it is unlikely to propagate into adjacent
components. This redundancy
definition was used for the tie
girder of the Blue Water
Bridge tied arch between
Michigan and Canada. The tie

was designed as a box built up

from angles and plates bolted
together.

The redundancy question

is the subject of a number of
research studies that should
result in definitive specification
provisions. The use of threedimensional finite element
analysis may resolve the alternate load path issue in the
future.

and
Disadvantages

Advantages
I

n many cases, a two-girder, nonredundant bridge can be fabricated and constructed more economically than a three girder, redundant
structure. Applying the Fracture Critical
Plan to the two
girder
scheme
Applying the
results in a structure
Fracture
that can be expectCritical Plan to
ed to provide a
level of safety and
the two girder
reliability equivalent
scheme results
to the three girder
in a structure
structure. A major
that can be
concern is when
Fracture Critical
expected to
provisions are specprovide a level
ified and not justiof safety and
fied.
As the
reliability equivCommentary for
alent to the
the
Fracture
Control
Plan
states,
three girder
The
Fracture
structure.
Control Plan must
not be used indiscriminately by designers as a crutch to be
safe and to circumvent good engineering
practice. Specifying a member as fracture
critical requires stricter fatigue require-

ments for every fatigue category. These

stricter requirements include; increased
material toughness, increased mill testing,
more restrictive fabrication procedures,

and
more
rigorous
inspections.
Indiscriminately specifying FCM may
increase the cost of a bridge without
increasing the reliability.

Designer and Fabricator roles

regarding fracture critical

esigners and fabricators who review design plans need to investigate members
that are designated as fracture-critical. The reviewer should determine if the
fracture critical designations are properly limited to tension components. Compression
components such as the top flange in a simple span bridge should not be required to
meet fracture critical criteria. In many cases it is incorrect for entire members to be
designated fracture-critical or for plate girder structures of more than two girders to
include fracture-critical material. Even two-girder structures with fracture-critical members may warrant re-evaluation based on past research.

pecifying fracture-critical where it is required is the responsibility of the engineer.

Specifying fracture-critical cannot be a substitute for good engineering judgement since it adds cost but not reliability to the bridge.

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

For additional fatigue and fracture related information, please refer to:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition, Washington D.C., 1996.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Bridges:The Best of Current Practice, AISC,1985.
ANSI/AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code, 1996.
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Manual for Railway
Engineering, Chapter 15; Steel Structures, AREMA.
Barsom, J.M.,The Development of AASHTO Fracture-Toughness
Requirements for Bridge Steels, American Iron and Steel Institute, February 1975.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Economical Details for Bridges: Cross Frames and Cross Frame
Connections Technical Bulletin,TB-315A.
Fisher, J.W., Bridge Fatigue Guide, American Institute of Steel Construction, 1977.
Fisher, J.W., Fatigue and Fracture in Steel Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, 1984.
Fisher, John W., Geoffrey L. Kulak and Ian F.C. Smith, "A Fatigue Primer for Structural Engineers",
National Steel Bridge Alliance, May 1998.
Miller, D.K., Design Fire: Consider Overall Structural Performance When Specifying Fatigue Details,
The Welding Innovation Quarterly,Volume X, No. 2., 1993.
National Steel Bridge Alliance,Volume I, Chapter 3, Highway Structures Design Handbook.
Rolfe, S.T., J.M. Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, Prentice Hall, 1977.
Salmon, C.G., J.E. Johnson, Steel Structures, Harper Collins, 1990.

Notes:

Visit our web site at www.nsbaweb.org